🔗 Share this article

The Reform UK leader portrays his political party as a distinct occurrence that has burst on to the global stage, its rapid ascent an exceptional epochal event. However this week, in every one of Europe’s major countries and from the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia to the United States and Argentina, hard-right, anti-immigration, anti-globalization parties like his are also ahead in the public surveys.

In last Saturday’s Czech elections, the rightwing, pro-Russian leader Andrej Babiš toppled the head of government Petr Fiala. National Rally, which has just forced the resignation of yet another French prime minister, is leading the polls for both the French presidency and parliament. In Germany, the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) is currently the leading party. Hungary’s Fidesz party, Slovakia's governing alliance and the Italian political group are already in government, while the Freedom party of Austria (FPÖ), the Netherlands’ Freedom party (PVV) and Belgium’s Vlaams Belang – all hardline nationalists – are part of an international coalition of anti-internationalists, motivated by far-right propagandists such as a well-known figure, aiming to dethrone the international rule of law, diminish fundamental freedoms and destroy international collaboration.

Rise of Populist Nationalism

This nationalist wave exposes a recent undeniable reality that supporters of democracy ignore at great risk: an authoritarian ethnic nationalism – once thought toppled with the Berlin Wall – has supplanted neoliberalism as the leading belief system of our age, giving us a world of firsts: “US priority”, “India first”, “Chinese emphasis”, “Russian primacy”, “my tribe first” and often “exclusive group focus” regimes. It is this nationalist sentiment that helps explain why the world is now composed of 91 autocracies and only 88 democracies, and this ideology is the force behind the breaches of international human rights law not just by Russia in Ukraine but in almost every instance of global strife.

Understanding the Underlying Forces

Crucial to grasp the underlying forces, common to almost every country, that have fuelled this new age of nationalism. It starts with a broadly shared perception that a globalization that was accessible yet exclusionary has been a free for all that has been unjust to all.

For more than a decade, leaders have not only been delayed in addressing to the millions who feel left out and marginalized, but also to the changing balance of world economic influence, moving us from a US-dominated era once led by the US to a multipolar world of competing superpowers, and from a system of international law to a power-based one. The nationalist ideology that this has incited means free trade is giving way to trade barriers. Where economics used to drive politics, the nationalist agendas is now driving financial choices, and already more than 100 countries are running protectionist strategies marked out by reshoring and ally-focused trade and by bans on international commerce, investment and knowledge sharing, sinking international cooperation to its weakest point since 1945.

Optimism in Public Opinion

However, there is hope. The situation is not fixed, and even as it hardens we can find hope in the pragmatism of the world's population. In a poll conducted for a major foundation, of thousands of individuals in 34 countries we find a clear majority are less receptive to an exclusionary nationalism and more willing to support international cooperation than many of the officials who rule over them.

Globally there is, maybe unexpectedly, only a small group of hardened anti-internationalists representing 16.5% of the global population (even if 25% in the United States currently) who either feel peaceful living between ethnic and religious groups is unattainable or have a zero-sum mindset that if they or their country do well, it has to be at the cost of others doing badly.

However there are an additional group at the opposite extreme, whom we might call dedicated globalists, who either still see international collaboration through open trade as a positive sum win-win, or are what an influential thinker calls “locally engaged global citizens”.

The Global Majority's Stance

The vast majority of the world's citizens are somewhere in between: not isolated patriots, as “US priority” ideology would suggest, or fully global citizens. They are devoted to their country but don’t see the world as in a never-ending struggle between the “us” and the “others”, adversaries permanently set apart from each other in an unbridgeable divide.

Do the majority in the middle prefer a duty-free or a responsible global community? Are they willing to accept responsibilities beyond their garden gate or city wall? Affirmative, under certain conditions. A initial segment, 22%, will support aid efforts to relieve suffering and are prepared to act out of selflessness, backing disaster relief for affected areas. Those we might call “charitable” cooperation advocates feel the pain of others and have faith in something larger than their own interests.

A second group comprising 22% are practical cooperators who want to know that any taxes paid for global progress are used effectively. And there is a final category, 21%, personally motivated collaborators, who will endorse cooperation if they can see that it benefits them and their communities, whether it be through guaranteeing them food on the table or peace and security.

Forging a Collaborative Consensus

Thus a definite majority can be built not just for humanitarian aid if funds are used wisely but also for global action to deal with global problems, like climate crisis and pandemic prevention, as long as this case is presented on grounds of enlightened self-interest, and if we stress the reciprocal benefits that benefit them and their own country. And thus for those who have long questioned whether we cooperate out of need or if we have a necessity for collaboration, the response is both.

And this openness to work internationally shows how we can turn back the xenophobic tide: we can overcome today’s negative, isolated and often aggressive and authoritarian nationalism that demonises immigrants, foreigners and “different groups” as long as we champion a optimistic, globally engaged and inclusive national pride that addresses people’s desire to belong and resonates with their immediate concerns.

Tackling Key Issues

And while in-depth polls tell us that across the west, illegal immigration is currently the biggest national issue – and no one should doubt that it must promptly be brought under control – the snapshots of opinion also tell us that the public are even more worried by what is happening in their personal circumstances and within their own local communities. Recently, the UK Prime Minister spoke movingly about how what’s positive in the nation can drive out what’s negative, doing so precisely because in most developed nations, “dysfunctional” and “deteriorating” are the words people have for years most frequently used when asked about both our financial system and society.

But as the prime minister also reminded us, the far right is more interested in using complaints than resolving issues. A Reform leader praised a ill-fated economic plan as “an excellent fiscal policy” since 1986. But he would also enact a similar plan – what was intended – the biggest ever cuts in government programs. The party's proposal to reduce public spending by a huge sum would not repair downtrodden communities but ravage them, create social division and destroy any sense of unity. Under a far-right government, you will not be able to afford to be ill, disabled, poor or at-risk. Every day from now on, and in every electoral district, Reform should be asked which medical facility, which educational institution and which public service will be the first to be reduced or closed.

The Stakes and the Alternative

“Faragism” is economic theory at its most cruel, more destructive even than monetary policy, and vindictive far beyond fiscal restraint. What the public are telling us all over the west is that they want their governments to restore our financial systems and our civic societies. “The party” and its international partners should be revealed repeatedly for plans that would devastate both. And for those of us who believe our greatest achievements could be ahead of us, we can go beyond highlighting the party's contradictions by setting out a case for a improved nation that appeals not just to idealists, but to realists, to personal benefit, and to the everyday compassion of the British people.